EVE General Discussion

If you step back and take a look, ECM is arguably the least destructive of the EWAR varieties with the exception of TPs. A sensor dampener can lower a ship's targeting range to the point that it can't lock anything. Tracking disruptors lower the tracking on a ship to the point it can't actually hit anything. How frustrating is it that you can lock a target, but you can't track well enough to even hit it? Of course, TDs don't work against logistics, EWAR, or missile boats. That would make TDs less effective than ECM.

In other words, ECM, damps, and tracking disruption all have the potential to remove enemies from the fight. ECM and damps prevent you from locking, and TDs prevent your guns from doing anything effective. ECM is balanced in the way that it has a non-trivial chance of outright failing none of the other EWARs have. In fact SDs, TDs, and TPs never miss. ECM effects lasts 20 seconds whereas SD and TD effects last for as long as the module is activated.

Another balancing factor is that ECM is a mid-slot module in a race that is purely shield tanking. The other three races can fill their mids with EWAR and put together a reasonable armor tank. It is no mystery that this is why the CFC celestis fleets are so successful. They are combining never miss EWAR with a bonused ship that can tank long enough for logi to rep them. Caldari ships can put together a tissue paper armor tank at best.

One more reason ECM is less effective than the other types of EWARs is that to be effective in all situations a ECM ship needs to fit 4 specialized modules compared to the 1 generalized module that TDs, SDs and TPs enjoy. This means that tank is often sacrificed to reacha bare minimum of effectiveness.

"That is all fine and dandy," You say "but ECM is still too powerful". Why don't we take a look at some numbers?

Take a T2 Minmatar jammer. The ECM Phase Inverter II has a Ladar jam strength of 3.6.
Jammer vs Rifter: 3.6/8 sensor strength = 45% chance of a jam or 55% chance of doing nothing.
Jammer vs Stabber: 3.6/13 sensor strength = 27.69% chance of a jam or 72.31% chance of doing nothing.
Jammer vs Hurricane: 3.6/16 sensor strength = 22.5% chance of a jam or 77.5% chance of doing nothing.
Jammer vs Tempest: 3.6/20 sensor strength = 18% chance of a jam or 82% chance of doing nothing.

See? hardly anything wrong with ECM. Even against the most basic frigate it will fail more times than it will succeed. Imagine if your guns, hardeners, point, MWD, etc. had that fail rate. *shudder*

You see your issue is not truly with ECM. Your issue, is in fact, with the ECM bonused hulls. Take a Falcon with all level 5 skills fit with racial jammers, 2 Sensor Distortion Amps, and one ECM strength rig and let's look at those numbers again.

All level 5 Falcon vs. Sensor Comp. 5 ship:
Jammer vs Rifter: 14.2/9.6 sensor strength = 100% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Stabber: 14.2/15.6 sensor strength = 91.02% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Hurricane: 14.2/19.2 sensor strength = 73.95% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Tempest: 14.2/24 sensor strength = 59.16% chance of jamming

That really isn't OP at all. Considering the vast amount of training one has to accomplish to become a perfect Falcon pilot. In comparison the time it take to train a racial sensor comp to 5 or fit an ECCM module is trivial. In addition a Falcon has a tissue paper tank, a non-trivial chance of missing a jam, and unlike the other forms of EWAR it doesn't last forever.

Now you are likely to bring up a rather painful point in small gang and solo PvP: The ECM drone. Why don't we take a look at those?

EC-300 drone strength is 1.
Jammer vs Rifter: 1/9.6 sensor strength = 10.41% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Stabber: 1/15.6 sensor strength = 6.41% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Hurricane: 1/19.2 sensor strength = 5.23% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Tempest: 1/24 sensor strength = 4.16% chance of jamming

EC-600 drone strength is 1.5.
Jammer vs Rifter: 1.5/9.6 sensor strength = 15.62% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Stabber: 1.5/15.6 sensor strength = 9.61% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Hurricane: 1.5/19.2 sensor strength = 7.81% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Tempest: 1.5/24 sensor strength = 6.25% chance of jamming

Neither of those scream OP at all. "Now that isn't the real story" you exclaim "Most ships have 5!" True:
(How to calculate: Link calculator: Link (P (X>=1)) is the important number)

5 EC-300 jam strength 1:
vs Rifter: 42.28% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Stabber: 28.19% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Hurricane: 23.55% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Tempest: 21.02% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
For 25m3 of drones these do seem a touch too powerful. I would recommend a reduction in jam strength down to .75.

5 EC-600 jam strength 1.5:
vs Rifter: 57.22% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Stabber: 39.66% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Hurricane: 33.40% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Tempest: Or 27.58% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
For 50m3 of drones these seem very well balanced for their size.

You see in the grand scheme of things ECM is neither OP, broken, wrong, out of place, or any of the other things people claim ECM is. It is merely a different and perfectly valid form of EWAR. It is high-risk high-reward, only truly effective on bonused hulls (as it should be) which at best can manage a tissue paper tank when fitting jams

The problem with "Nerf Falcon" threads is that they are mostly written by those who don't fly Falcons. Those who fly Falcons know just how many downsides that ship already has.

There are a sufficient quantity of counters already in game.
It's not CCP's problem if the players don't use them effectively.

For every jammed target 5 Falcons get primaried in the first 6 seconds of a smallgang fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOzR0tEXjhA

As you can see a single falcon was able to keep the majority of the gang target jammed for the duration of the fight. That is a severe balance issue. Yes you can fit ECCM but that doesn't magically mean ECM/Falcon are balanced.

Let's assume for a second we take scenarios where all the target ships are not fitted for any EWAR reduction. Now let's consider the other forms of EWAR and T2 electronic ships. You can certainly do anything from cap neuting to target range reduction to the point where you take 1 ship out of the fight. Maybe, maybe 2 ships. But that's it. You can never, with any other electronic ship, do anything as effective as was seen in this video.

Does that mean Falcons cannot be killed? Of course not. In this case the pilot kept range. Being able to be killed does not mean balanced.

Does a Falcon always give you the best advantage? Again, no, and that is why other ship types get used on occasion. But that does not mean it's none the less balanced. As stated the balance issue comes from the fact that no other EWAR setup has the capability to be as effective as the Falcon does at their best.

The effectiveness of each given EWAR setup within an ideal scenario specific to that EWAR type should always equate to the effectiveness of the other EWAR setups within ideal scenarios for those EWAR types. The same should apply to the least ideal scenarios; all forms of EWAR being as ineffective as one another.

I would love to see them balance it like this.

If ECM cruisers were bewbies:

Blackbird = A-cup
Falcon = epic perma-perky triple-F's with small nipples and naturally-occuring cleavage

Stop whining about ECM you cry babies. What the hell.

Its called warp out, and warp back in... which is exactly what and low HP ecm ship has to do if its engaged.

Its one of the major players in deciding if a gang of 5-6 should consider engaging a gang of say 8 or 10. It helps keep the sandbox fluid, you take away the griffin/kitsune/blackbird/falcon/rook/scorpion/widow and you lose this significant factor in the creation of PVP content. People run away all the time now so as it is. You want to make it even worse I suppose.

If anything NERF LOGISITICS, OMG SO MUCH REPS JEEEZUS.

What you should be worried about is the Kitsune, in Rubicon.